Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.41 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
41 Even though number of citations are referred by the
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2022 09:21:13 :::
40
Cri.Appeals 563 n 572 of 2014 n 526 of 2015.odt
learned defence counsels appearing for the respective accused, the
law in respect of case based on circumstantial evidence is now well
settled. The view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in a case
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) has
been followed till now. Therefore, there is no need to refer and
discuss every citation relied on by the defence counsels when legal
position is very much clear.
Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 July, 2017
38 In a case of Baiju Kumar Soni and another Vs. State of
Jharkhand (supra), it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court that in
a case of circumstantial evidence when chain of circumstances not
fully established against accused, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
State Of Goa vs Pandurang Mohite on 8 December, 2008
In a case of
State of Goa Vs. Pandurang Mohite (supra), it is held by the
Honourable Supreme Court that in a case of last seen together, time
gap between last seen alive and recovery of dead body must be
small.
Bodh Raj @ Bodha And Ors vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 3 September, 2002
31 The decision in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra (supra) is followed consistently even in recent
times in the case of Bodh Raj Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(supra). Thus, law is clear that onus is on the prosecution to prove
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2022 09:21:13 :::
32
Cri.Appeals 563 n 572 of 2014 n 526 of 2015.odt
that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution
cannot be cured by false defence or plea.
Anjan Kumar Sarma vs State Of Assam on 23 May, 2017
In a case of Anjan Kumar Sarma and others Vs.
State of Assam (supra), it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court
that when a case of murder is entirely rest upon circumstantial
evidence, only circumstance of last seen together and absence of
satisfactory explanation cannot be made basis of conviction.
Suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. Inferences drawn by the
Court have to be on basis of established facts and not on conjectures.
It is also held by the Honourable Supreme Court that mere failure of
accused to offer any explanation while recording his statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone is not sufficient
to establish charge against the accused.
Mulak Raj & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 1996
The same view finds place in a case of
Mulak Raj and others Vs. State of Haryana (supra).